Garcia-Guillen 1

Simara Garcia-Guillen

Dr. Morgan

Critical Thinking and Writing

22 October 2019

Equality in a Transforming Society

Society progresses based on the knowledge that is shared amongst generations and one

influential technique of passing knowledge is through the use of narratives. In the book, ​Just

Mercy,​ Bryan Stevenson presents his personal experiences as a lawyer who represents convicted

criminals, to discuss several topics that are relevant in society and the judicial system. He

discusses the issues of discrimination in society, and how the judicidal system can affect our

biases of what discrimination means. The connection between what equality is and how it

transforms our biases, is apparent in the judicial system. The system attempts to say that one

identity, alone, causes discrimination, leading to certain laws that are in place. However,

Stevenson discusses the interconnectedness of several identities that victims acquire and how

they affect their conviction in a negative way. By touching on the idea of intersectionality and its

lack of recognition in the judicial system, Stevenson criticizes the laws and regulations that

society upholds. The narratives of several court cases that Bryan Stevenson highlights portray the

most severe instances that our judicial system still endures today to unveil the bitter truth that

there is no such thing as complete and full equality. He makes his point through the

individualized and intersectional racial, age, mental, and sexual discrimination that are illustrated

in the various anecdotes.

 Garcia-Guillen 2

The perception of what equality means is more positive than the reality of one’s

experiences. Likewise, the way equality is defined in our society and practiced have distinct

meanings as well, based on a single identity, despite individuals having multiple identities. The

measurement of equality can only be measured based on the previous experiences of the lack of

equality - equality is seen as complete and full today, in comparison to no equality in the 19th

century.

Throughout ​Just Mercy​, Stevenson portrays the harsh sentences of young adults

experiencing mental issues to grasp the reader’s attention and create a call to action, in an

attempt to confront the issue of inequality. Stevenson chooses to present the most unfair cases of

mental harm, such as that of Avery Jenkins. Jenkins was taken advantage of in the court as the

“lawyers did no investigation of Mr. Jenkins’s history prior to trial [and] trial records made no

reference to [his] mental illness” (197-198). In this instance, Stevenson focuses on the emotional

appeal, pathos, towards the audience, to sympathize with the discrimination in the case.

Although the claims made based on Jenkins actions were accurate about his crimes, Stevenson

points out that the court did not consider the identity associated with Jenkins. With one identity

affecting his actions, it brings up the question: How can he be testified against, considering his

actions and background equally? The court is inept to understanding the effect that Jenkin’s

mental illness had on his actions. Similarly, Stevenson narrates the horrid issues found in a

criminal case with a man named George Daniel. Clearly having mental issues, the State

persuades “the jury that there was nothing mentally wrong with George, even as he continuously

spit in a cup and made loud clucking noises throughout the trial” (190). Through the use of

antiphrasis, Steveson makes it evident that Daniel had a mental disability, which the court
 Garcia-Guillen 3

ignored. By stressing the court’s ignorance, Stevenson goes on to say that Daniel is discriminated

against, based on his mental disability. By emphasizing how the judicial system deliberately

avoids the mental aspect of criminals, Stevenson directs readers towards the truth that the

judicial systems failed to acknowledge. He directs his audience towards mitigation, implying that

the audience, whom acquires this knowledge through narration, should act upon the mistakes of

the past, learning to ease the suffering of the convicted. It is impossible to equally and justifiably

convict a mentally disabled individual of a crime by using the standards of a person without

those disabilities.

Emphasizing the bigotry towards the minority race, Stevenson emphasizes the extent that

racial discrimination is an issue in the courtroom. McMillian’s experiences of inequality are

based on the biases of race in the judicial system. Stevenson first introduces the corruption of his

conviction saying that “there was no evidence against McMillian … except that he was an

African-American man involved in an adulterous interracial affair, which meant he was reckless

and possibly dangerous, even if he had no prior criminal history and a good reputation” (34). As

his lawyer, Stevenson has the credibility to present this information to the audience, he knows

the underlying truth, despite the perception of McMillian. He uses direct language to

demonstrate the extent that racial discrimination is evident. As a lawyer, Stevenson is credible to

criticize the false verdicts that officials make, based on their own biases. Stevenson questions the

authority of officials who declare a verdict through the use of their biases. Thus, if the judicial

system bases its verdicts off of personal biases, then there is no equality due to the inequality of

racial discrimination and percpetion of a single race.

 Garcia-Guillen 4

Inequality is evident in racial discrimination because there is a failure to acknowledge the

intersectionality of an individual. What judicials failed to consider in the McMillian case were

the multiple identities he had, aside from being a Black male. He had an occupation in “his own

pulpwood business … in a growing sector of the economy” (25). Stevenson points out the

different levels of inequality due to the denial of intersectionality that is present in society.

Stevenson goes on to elaborate that there is age discrimination presented in the judicial

system as well, which affects the interpretation of what is justified or not in the judicial system.

Referencing to the case of Joe Sullivan, Stevenson touches on the identities that Sullivan

acquires, making his case more complicated, while also making the ruling more immoral.

Sullivan was described as “quite a dark colored boy” (256) when he was accused of murder.

Again, officials arrested and tried Sullivan due to his racial identity. Stevenson also includes

further innocent description of Sullivan mentioning he was a “very immature naive person [and]

the court concluded that Joe had been ‘given opportunity after opportunity to upright himself’ ”

(258). By including the innocent description of Sullivan, Stevenson appeals to the emotions of

the audience, dwelling on the issue that the court system took advantage of Sullivan in several

aspects based on his identity. As a Black, child, who came from a poor socioeconomic status, his

conviction was based on a single action, and did not consider the effects of his identities on his

personality as a whole. Equality for Sullivan is difficult to define, considering the

intersectionality of his identities; the inequality that he faced from the court was an effect of

racial discrimination, as other identities were disregarded. The extremity of Sullivan’s case

affected his life beyond the courtroom, in jail, “he could still only read at a third-grade level,

despite the fact that he was thirty-one” (259). Creating sympathy for the audience, Stevenson
 Garcia-Guillen 5

continues to explain the non-existence of ultimate equality when intersectionality is not

understood or acknowledged.

Stevenson’s ultimately highlights the intersectionality of an individual and its negative

affect on their conviction through the narrative of Marsha Colbey and case of her stillborn child.

Colbey was convicted primarily by the claims made by a forensic pathologist, “even though most

experts agree that forensic pathologists … are not qualified to estimate survival chances, the

State allowed prosecutors to pursue criminal charges” (231). The State allowing these extreme

false claims to ultimately decide the fate of Colbey convinces the audience through logic that it is

unethically justified. The judicial system allowing the death penalty on Colbey based on her

background as a “ poor, prior drug user” (232), uses the identities associated with Colbey’s

persona. However, her intersectionalities were used against her, rather than justifying extreme

claims, making the situation worse throughout the nation, as other women were also accused of

similar issues. Complete equality cannot be achieved because everyone has different

combinations of identity, leading to different types of equality; the court system cannot

systematically develop a single interpretation of equality, for the intersectionalities of all

identities.

There is no such thing as complete equality because people aren’t made up of a single

identity, they’re made up of several identities, and those several identities make a verdict more

complicated to declare, than for an individual without multiple identities. Although the judicial

system is the best legal representation of achieving justice in society, there is no system that can

truly appeal to the benefit of all. The interconnectedness of one’s nature and nurture have a direct
 Garcia-Guillen 6

effect in the decision-making process in the courtroom, but also create the misunderstanding of

equality in today’s society and what equality means to different individuals.

 Garcia-Guillen 7

Works Cited

Stevenson, Bryan. ​Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption.​ Spiegel & Grau, 2014.